kill_window

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds the "last resort" framing and the force semantics, but does not say what is lost (unsaved work, process state) or whether the underlying app is terminated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the force/last-resort caveat is attached directly to the action. Only slightly terse for a destructive operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive single-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits the escalation relationship to close_window and any note about consequences to the target application.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the address format (hex) and the omit-for-focused default more precisely than the description does. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Force kill a window") with the key qualifier "force" that distinguishes it from the graceful sibling close_window. It does not name close_window explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Use as last resort" gives a hint about escalation but never names the alternative (close_window) or the condition that should trigger escalation, so the agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.